Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Shraddhanand

  M. K.  Gandhi's Speeches and Writings on Swami Shraddhanand’s’ Murder

 

Speech at A.I.C.C. Meeting, Gauhati

[December 24, 1926]

A press reporter had come to me and asked me to say something. I told him I could not. I felt too overwhelmed to be able to say anything. Mrs. Naidu also pleaded with me for a message. I again refused. Since I have been, this time, ordered to speak, I shall try to express what I feel. But I am in no condition really to say anything. I can, however, tell you how the news affected me. As soon as I received Lalaji’s wire I conveyed the news to Malaviyaji and others and sent telegrams to Lalaji and Swamiji’s son Indra. In that telegram, rather than express sorrow or grief, I said that this was no ordinary death, that I should not weep over it. Unbearable as it is, my heart refuses to grieve; it rather prays that all of us may be granted such a death.

From Swami Shraddhanand’s point of view what has happened may be called a blessed event. He had been ill. I had not been aware of it but a friend told me that it would be a miracle if Swamiji survived. Later, in reply to a telegram of mine his son wired that he was slowly improving. I was assured that Dr. Ansari was looking after him with solicitude. Thus he was in bed gravely ill and in bed he was murdered. All men, of course, must die but of what worth is their dying? In India and wherever there are Hindus and Mussalmans, the death of Swamiji before his time will produce an effect very different from what would have been produced if Swamiji had died a natural death. I have not sent brother Indra any telegram or letter expressing sympathy with him. There was nothing I could say to him except that the death his father had met was a blessed death.

But I have said all this from the point of view of Swamiji and from my own point of view. I have repeatedly said that I make no distinction between Hindus and Mussalmans. I am a Hindu by birth and I find peace in the Hindu religion. Whenever peace seemed to elude me, it was in the Hindu religion that I found it. I studied other religions also and I decided that, whatever its defects and drawbacks, Hinduism alone could be the religion for me. That is what I feel and that is why I call myself a sanatani Hindu. Many sanatanis feel exasperated by this claim of mine and say: How can this man who has come back from England with all these new-fangled ideas be a Hindu? But this does not weaken my claim to being a Hindu, and Hinduism tells me to abide in friendship with all. So I have to think of the viewpoint of Mussalmans also.

 

And when I look at this matter from the Mussalmans’ viewpoint, things are different. This deed was done through the hand of a Mussalman. Entering the house under the pretext of having a religious discussion with Swamiji he committed this monstrous act. The servant had told him that Swamiji was ill and could not see him. There was some argument at the door. When Swamiji heard it, he said: “Well, let him come.” And although Swamiji need not have talked with him, he did so. He had not the strength, in fact, to talk much. All he wanted was gently to persuade him to go away. So he called him and said: “My friend, you can talk with me to your heart’s content after I get well. But now I am bed-ridden.” At this the visitor asked for water todrink. Swamiji told Dharam Singh to get him some. As soon as the faithful servant turned his back, he took out a revolver. He fired two shots, not satisfied with one. Swamiji died then and there. Hearing the shots Dharam Singh ran to save his master, but it was too late! It was not God’s will that Swamiji’s body should be saved. Dharam Singh was also hit and is now in hospital. The killer, Abdul Rashid, is in police custody. It pains me to imagine the feeling that this will evoke among the Hindus. Without doubt this will create ill feeling for Mussalmans among the Hindus. Today there is no love between the two communities. There is no trust. Both do realize that at the end they have to live together like brothers, but meanwhile each, conscious of its weakness, wants to fight with the other, become strong and then unite. In these circumstances, and with the poison that is spread in the newspapers, it is difficult to say what this deed will lead to. That was why I wanted to keep silent. I cannot calm the storm that is raging within me, I cannot suppress it and I cannot express it before you.

 

We should learn a lesson from the fact that Swamiji died by the hand of Abdul Rashid. Let this make us try to understand each other. It would be wonderful if we realized that we cannot live together in perpetual conflict. But the atmosphere that prevails today holds out no hope that we shall escape with only one murder,

 

I shall say nothing at the moment of my personal relationship with Shraddhanandji. He opened out his heart to me. About six months ago when he visited the Ashram, he said to me: “I get many letters holding out threats to my life. But they do not worry me.” You see, he was a brave man. In all the world I know no one braver than Swamiji. He had no fear of death for he had faith in God. That is why he used to say: “Even if they take my life what would it matter?” There is nothing to be wondered at that he was killed. There would be nothing to be wondered at if there were more murders. Today it is a Mussalman who has murdered a Hindu. We should not be surprised if a Hindu killed a Mussalman. God forbid that this should happen but what else can one expect when we cannot control our tongue or our pen? I must, however, say that if any Hindu imitated this act he would only bring disgrace to Hinduism.

 

I have said that it would be better if, instead of ignorant people fighting among themselves, the leaders who harbour enmity towards each other were to do the fighting. But it should not be that an individual from among the ignorant folk takes the life of a leader.

 

Let us pray to God that we may understand the real meaning of this assassination. This is a testing time for Hindus and Mussalmans. Let the Hindus remain peaceful and refrain from seeking revenge for this murder. Let them not think that the two communities are now enemies of each other and that unity is no longer possible. If they do, they will be committing a crime and bringing disgrace upon their religions. And, in my opinion, if a Mussalman thinks than Abdul Rashid did well he will be disgracing his religion. For that is not his religion. His religion is something else. Now is the opportunity for the Mussalmans to show the real teachings of Islam. Shraddhanandji and the Hindus have, of course, got what they had to, but as a man and as a friend and brother of Mussalmans, I must tell them that it will do both our communities good if we would understand this in the right spirit. May God give us faith and wisdom to survive this test and to behave towards each other, after this deed, in such a way that God can say that the two communities did what they ought to have done.

[From Hindi]

Navajivan, 6-1-1927

Resolution and Speech at Congress Session, Gauhati

1 December 26, 1926

Resolution

This Congress expresses its horror and indignation at the cowardly and treacherous murder of Swami Shraddhanand and places on record its sense of the irreparable loss the nation has sustained by the tragic death of a brave and noble patriot who dedicated his life and his great gifts to the service of his country and of his faith and espoused with fearless devotion the cause of the lowly, the fallen and the weak.

Brothers and Sisters,

You must have noticed that the resolution I have moved originally stood in Maulana Mohamed Ali’s name. But I am here to move it in obedience to the President’s summons. We see from the newspapers that the assassination of Swamiji has evoked grief and horror throughout the land. I said speaking on the same subject at the All-India Congress Committee that we should not mourn over Swamiji’s death. He had died the death of a hero, and every one of us might wish for such a death. But I want to make a slight correction in that last statement. Every brave man welcomes such a death whenever it comes to him. He greets it as a friend. But let no one therefore invite or hanker after such a death, let no one desire that someone else should be in the wrong and err against God and man, so that he might become a martyr. It is wrong to wish anyone to go astray. Let us all be brave enough to die the death of a martyr, but let no one lust for martyrdom.

Swamiji was a hero among heroes, the bravest of the brave. He had astonished the nation with an unbroken record of bravery. I am witness of the pledge he had taken to sacrifice himself at the altar of the country

But need anyone speak at length on Swamiji’s services to the nation? Swamiji, as everyone knew, was the help of the helpless, the friend of the weak and the oppressed and the work he had done for the untouchables was unsurpassed. I well remember his having told me once that, unless every Hindu member of the All-India Congress Committee had an untouchable servant in his home, the work of the Congress for the uplift of the untouchables would not be complete. This may sound as an impracticable proposal, but it shows his unbounded love for the untouchables.

 

I shall not refer here to his many other services. Whilst the assassination of such a great hero and patriot, such a servant and devotee of God as Swamiji, can be made to serve the country’s cause, imperfect men as we are, it is natural for us to mourn over his sad death. And when one thinks of the circumstances under which he met his death, one is naturally filled with horror and indignation. The assassin sought an interview with Swamiji to have a discussion on Islam. His faithful servant refused to admit him as he had Dr. Ansari’s orders to allow no interviews so long as Swamiji was seriously ailing. But God had evidently ordered otherwise. Swamiji, when he overheard the request, asked Dharam Singh to let the man in. Brother Abdul Rashid was shown in. I purposely call him brother, and if we are true Hindus you will understand why I call him so. Swamiji asked his servant to admit Abdul Rashid, because God had willed to show therethrough the greatness of Swamiji and the glory of Hinduism. Swamiji was, of course, too ill to discuss religious topics and he asked the stranger to seek another occasion. But he would not go. He said he was thirsty and asked for water. Swamiji asked Dharam Singh to fetch water for him and taking advantage of his absence, the man deposited bullet shots in Swamiji’s breast.

 

This is a thing which should not have happened in India—India where both Hindus and Mussalmans are proud of their faiths. I have studied the Koran with the same reverent attention as I give the Gita, and I say that the Koran nowhere sanctions or enjoins such murders. The murder has been possible because the two communities look upon each other with feelings of hatred and enmity. Many Mussalmans believe that Lalaji and Malaviyaji are the sworn enemies of Islam as was Swamiji in their opinion. On the other hand, many Hindus regard Sir Abdur Rahim and other Mussalmans as the enemies of Hinduism. To my mind both are wholly wrong. Swamiji was no enemy of Islam nor are Lalaji and Malaviyaji. Lalaji and Malaviyaji have a right to express their opinion freely and even if we disagree with them, no one may excite feelings of hatred against them. And yet, what do we see today? There are few Mussalman papers today which do not use foul language against these patriots. Now I ask in all humility what is the wrong they have done. We may not see eye to eyewith them in their methods of work. But I am sure that it is his great service that has earned for Malaviyaji the name, Bharat Bhushan. Lalaji too has a great record of service. Then take the Mussalman leaders. Sir Abdur Rahim may think that Hindus are in advance of the Mussalmans in every respect, that they are rich, they are educated, and the Mussalmans are poor and uneducated. Sir Abdur Rahim thinks that his community should have a preference in the services. It is open to us to feel and say that he is mistaken in his views, but why should we abuse him for his opinions? If Maulana Mahomed Ali says that although he has respect for Gandhi he holds that the faith of a Muslim who believes in the Koran is greater than the faith of Gandhi, why should we be angry? Do not some Christian clergymen say that a Christian regularly going to church and serving Jesus is better than a Hindu however pious he may be? What does that matter to us? I therefore appeal to you that if you hold dear the memory of Swami Shraddhanandji, you would help in purging the atmosphere of mutual hatred and calumny, you would help in boycotting papers which foment hatred and spread misrepresentation. I am sure that India would lose nothing if 90 per cent of the papers were to cease today. Many Mussalman papers today subsist on hatred of the Hindu and many Hindu papers subsist on hatred of the Mussalman. Swamiji has left for us a rich lesson written in his blood. “Do you know the liberality of the Arya Samaj?,” he once asked me. “Do you know how Maharshi Dayanand forgave the man who poisoned him?” I knew it. How could I be ignorant of it, knowing as I did that the Maharshi had before him the example of Yudhishthira and the teaching of the Gita and the Upanishads? But Shraddhanandji in his overflowing reverence for the Maharshi dilated upon his forgiveness. I tell you the disciple had no less of that noble quality than his great master. Speaking once about the implications of shuddhi he told me that his shuddhi excluded any feeling of ill will for the Mussalman, that it meant purification of self and of the great community to which he belonged, and that his ideal was the ideal of the Gita—“See thyself in every one of the created beings.” But he emphasized that the Hindu also was no less a friend of his than the Mussalman and that it was his duty to serve him. Even if the whole Muslim world were to turn against me, I would declare that Malaviyaji is my friend and elder brother. I declare also in the same breath that none of the Mussalman leaders is an enemy of Hinduism. Sir Abdur Rahim is not an enemy of the Hindus, nor is Mian Fazli Hussain. When I met him he assured me that he was an old Congressman, that he loved the Hindus no less than the Mussalmans, but that as a Mussalman he wanted to serve the latter. We may disagree with him in his views, we may not like hisdemands for the Mussalmans, but why should we therefore swear at him and say that he is an enemy of the Hindus? Why should we not express our dissent from his views and fight them, if necessary, even as I do with Malaviyaji, in many respects, in a satyagrahi way? I repeat, therefore, with all the emphasis I can command that Sir Abdur Rahim or Mr. Jinnah or the Ali Brothers are no enemies of the Hindus. Let not the lesson of Swami Shraddhanandji’s death be lost on us. You will all be accepting this resolution standing while, at this moment perhaps, there are Hindu-Muslim disturbances going on in Delhi. But I tell you that, if every one of you understands and lays to his heart the lesson that Swami Shraddhanandji has left for us, it is again possible to win swaraj in no time. I am a mad man, you will say, accustomed to giving rash promises. Well, I tell you I am not mad, I am still as much in earnest about my programme as I was in 1920, but those who made pledges in 1920 broke them and made swaraj impossible then. We are all children of the same Father—whom the Hindu and the Mussalman and the Christian know by different names. What if Sankara declared his faith in one God in his formula Ekamevadvitiyam of Ramanuja in his dual doctrine or Mahomed in his La Illah Illillah? All meant one and the same thing. If we cleanse our hearts, we shall be able to see that Swamiji has served us in his death as much as he served us when living. Let us purify our hearts with his blood, and fight, if need be, for our rights in a peaceful and satyagrahi way. Let every Mussalman also understand that Swami Shraddhanandji was no enemy of Islam, that his was a pure and unsullied life, and that he has left for us all the lesson of peace written in his blood.

 Now you will, perhaps, understand why I have called Abdul Rashid a brother, and I repeat it, I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami’s murder. Guilty, indeed, are all those who excited feelings of hatred against one another. For us Hindus, the Gita enjoins on us the lesson of equality; we are to cherish the same feelings towards a learned Brahmin as towards a Chandal, a dog, a cow and an elephant.

This is no occasion for mourning or tears, it is an occasion that should burn in our hearts the lesson of bravery. Bravery is not the exclusive quality of the Kshatriyas. It may be their special privilege. But, in our battle for swaraj, bravery is essential as much for the Brahmin and the Vaisya and the Sudra as for the Kshatriya. Let us not therefore shed tears of sorrow, but chasten our hearts and steel them with some of the fire and faith that were Shraddhanandji’s.

Report of the Indian National Congress, Forty-first Session, Gauhati (Assam), 1926, pp. 42-5

 Note:The text of the speech was also published in Young India, 13-1-1927, under the heading “Hero among Heroes”.

Shraddhanandji—The Martyr

The expected has happened. Swami Shraddhanandji passed a day or two at the Satyagraha Ashram at Sabarmati, now about six months ago, and told me, in the course of his conversations, that he often received letters threatening his life. Where is the reformer who has not a price put upon his head? There was, therefore, nothing untoward in his getting the letters. And there is nothing untoward in the assassination having taken place.

Swamiji was a reformer, he was a man of action, not of words. His was a living belief. He had suffered for it. He was bravery personified. He never quailed before danger. He was a warrior. And a warrior loves to die, not on a sick-bed, but on the battlefield.

Shraddhanandji became seriously ill about a month ago. Dr. Ansari was, as his physician, giving him all the loving attention he was capable of giving. The telegram I received from his son, Indra, in reply to my inquiry1 at the beginning of month, was that he was better and that he wanted my ‘love and prayer’ both of which he had before the asking.

God had willed for him a martyr’s death and so, though he was still on the sick-bed, he died at the hands of an assassin who had asked to be admitted to the Swamiji’s presence for the purpose of holding a religious discourse on Islam, who was admitted at the Swamiji’s instance, and who, under pretence of wanting water to quench his thirst, had Swamiji’s faithful servant, Dharam Singh, sent out to fetch water, and who, in the absence of the servant, deposited two death wounds in the patient’s breast, as he was lying in his bed. We have not the last words of the Swamiji, but if I knew him at all, I have no doubt that he prayed to his God to forgive him who knew not that he was doing anything wrong. In the language of the Gita, therefore,‘Happy the warrior who achieves such a blessed death’.

Death is at any time blessed, but it is twice blessed for a warrior who dies for his cause, i.e., truth. Death is no fiend, he is the truest of friends. He delivers us from agony. He helps us against ourselves. He ever gives us new chances, new hopes. He is like sleep, a sweet restorer. Yet it is customary to mourn when a friend dies. The custom has no operation when the death is that of a martyr. I cannot, therefore, mourn over this death. He and his are to be envied. For though Shraddhanandji is dead, he is yet living. He is living in a truer sense than when he moved about in our midst in his giant body. The family in which he was born, the nation to which he belonged are to be congratulated upon so glorious a death as this. He lived a hero. He has died a hero.

But there is another side to the shield. I regard myself as a friend of the Mussalmans. They are my blood-brothers. Their wrongs are my wrongs. I share their sorrows and their joys. Any evil deed done by a Mussalman hurts me just as much as that done by a Hindu. This foul deed has been done by one who bears a Mussalman name. As a friend of the Mussalmans, therefore, I deeply regret the event. The joy of the death is thus tempered by the sorrow that an erring, misguided brother has been the cause of it. Martyrdom can, therefore, never be wished for. It becomes a thing of joy only when it comes unsought. We may not gloat over the errors of the least of our fellows.

But the fact is that an error often refuses to become patent until it becomes atrocious. It dies only after being completely disgraced.

This tragedy has a national importance. It draws pointed attention to an evil that is eating into the vitals of the nation. Both Hindus and Mussalmans have the choice before them. We are both on our trial.

Hindus may, by being resentful, disgrace Hinduism and postpone the unity that must come. They can by self-restraint show themselves to be worthy of the message of the Upanishads and of Yudhishthira who was the embodiment of forgiveness. Let us not ascribe the crime of an individual to a whole community. Let us not harbour the spirit of retaliation. Let us not think of the wrong as done by a Mussalman against a Hindu, but of an erring brother against a hero.

Mussalmans have an ordeal to pass through. There can be no doubt that they are too free with the knife and the pistol. The sword is no emblem of Islam. But Islam was born in an environment where the sword was and still remains the supreme law. The message of Jesus has proved ineffective because the environment was unready to receive it. So with the message of the Prophet. The sword is yet too much in evidence among Mussalmans. It must be sheathed if Islam is to be what it means—peace. There is danger of Mussalmans secretly endorsing the mad deed. It will be a calamity for them and the world. For ours is after all a world problem. Reliance upon the sword is wholly inconsistent with reliance upon God. There should be, on their part, unequivocal mass condemnation of the atrocity.

I wish to plead for Abdul Rashid. I do not know who he is. It does not matter to me what prompted the deed. The fault is ours. The newspaper man has become a walking plague. He spreads the contagion of lies and calumnies. He exhausts the foul vocabulary of his dialect, and injects his virus into the unsuspecting, and often receptive minds of his readers. Leaders ‘intoxicated with the exuberance of their own language’ have not known to put a curb upon their tongues or pens. Secret and insidious propaganda has done its dark and horrible work, unchecked and unabashed. It is, therefore, we the educated and the semi-educated class that are responsible for the hot fever which possessed Abdul Rashid.

It is unnecessary to discriminate and apportion the blame between the rival parties. Where both are to blame, who can arbitrate with golden scales and fix the exact ratio of blame? It is no part of self-defence to tell lies or exaggerate.

It is too much to hope, but Swamiji was great enough to warrant the hope that his blood may wash us of our guilt, cleanse our hearts and cement these two mighty divisions of the human family.

 I must deal with the life of Swamiji as I knew him in the next issue of Young India.

Young India, 30-12-1926

 This was in response to a request received from a  trustee of a national level Gandhian organization to  know the historical facts.